Back
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble R.M. LODHA, J. Honble MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Union of India & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Kumari Amrit Kaur Rai & Anr. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2125 of 2001
Decided On : September 11, 2007
jsYos laLFkkiUu eSuqvy] Hkkx-I iqujhf{kr laLdj.k] 1989] in 302 o 303 & ofj"Brk dk vo/kkj.k & vkafkd :i ls lh/kh HkrhZ ls Hkjs x;s ,oa vkafkd :i ls inksUufr ls Hkjs x;s in ds ekeys esa & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & eSuqvy ds in 302 ,oa 303¼[k½ ds vuqlkj jsyos HkrhZ cksMZ ds ek/;e ls HkrhZ fd;s x;s ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ofj"Brk dk vo/kkj.k] tgka izfk{k.k Ldwy esa izfk{k.k ysus dh vko;drk ugha gksrh gS] cksMZ }kjk nh xbZ ofj;rk Øe ds vk/kkj ij gksxk & ,sls deZpkfj;ksa ds ekeys esa ofj"Brk dh lqlaxr frfFk ofj"B fyfid ds dk;Zjr in ij dk;Z Hkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk gksxhA ¼in la[;k 12 ls 15½ ;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The dispute concerns the seniority of Kumari Amrit Kaur Rai, who was appointed as a Junior Clerk on compassionate grounds and later selected for direct recruitment as a Senior Clerk through the Railway Recruitment Board (!) .
The core issue is whether her date of joining as a Senior Clerk should be considered from the date of her initial posting in April 1989 or from her subsequent transfer in September 1989, after her request for group change was accommodated (!) (!) .
The relevant provisions governing seniority in initial recruitment grades specify that, unless otherwise stated, seniority is determined by the date of appointment to the grade. For categories filled by both direct recruitment and promotion, the seniority is based on the date of regular promotion or the date of joining the working post after due process, respectively (!) .
For candidates recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board where training is not required, seniority is to be determined based on the merit order assigned by the Board, with the relevant date being the date of joining the working post (!) (!) .
The manual provisions clarify that transfer requests do not automatically alter the seniority date unless explicitly covered by specific paragraphs governing transfer on request, which is not applicable in this case (!) (!) (!) .
The order of the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota, dated 20th April 1989, which posted the employee in her new group, is considered to be effective from 4th April 1989, the date she acted upon and joined her duties in that capacity (!) (!) .
The subsequent order issued by the Divisional Railway Manager in September 1989 was a ratification of her transfer and did not alter her initial date of joining as a Senior Clerk (!) (!) .
The tribunal's decision to treat her date of seniority as 4th April 1989 was supported by the interpretation of relevant manual provisions, which emphasize that the date of joining the working post determines seniority in cases of direct recruitment, even when subsequent orders are issued (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the order and the circumstances support treating her seniority from the date she joined the post in April 1989, rather than from the later order in September 1989 (!) .
In summary, the legal reasoning hinges on the interpretation of manual provisions regarding seniority, the effect of orders ratifying transfers, and the importance of the actual date of joining the working post for determining seniority in cases of direct recruitment.
(2). The controversy arises thus:
(a) Kumari Amrit Kaur Rai- respondent No. 1 (for short, `the employee) was appointed on 6th November, 1986 as Junior Clerk, on compassionate ground in Kota Division of Western Railway.
(b) Railway Recruitment Board, in the year 1988, held the examination for direct recruitment of senior clerks against the service graduates quota. The employee appeared in the said examination and was declared successful.
(c) On 15th December, 1988, a list of successful candidates from amongst the service graduates of Kota division for recruitment to Class III posts (senior clerk) was published. The name of the employee appeared at Item No. 16 of the said list. By the said list, the selected candidates were asked to give three options for posting in Ajmer, Jaipur, Kota, Ratlam, Jodhpur and Bikaner Divisions/Units.
(d) The employee sent communication to the Divisional Railway Manager, Kota on 16th December, 1988 indicating her option for Kota division for posting and her lien.
(e) By the office order dated 3rd April, 1989, the DRM, Kota issued an office order appointing nineteen persons in Class III service-senior clerks in the scale of 1200-2040 (RP)- Kota Division. In so far as the employee was concerned, she was posted in the office of Loco Foreman, Kota.
(f) On 4th April, 1989, the employee sent a representation to the Division Railway Manager (E), Western Railway, Kota stating therein that her group be changed from Mechanic, Operating, Commercial and General (for short, `MOCG) to Works, Budget, Stores and Medical (for short, `WEMS). She set out the reasons for change of her group.
(g) On 18th April, 1989, the office of Chief Engineer (Survey & Civil), Church Gate, Bombay sent a communication to the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C) Kota that the employee may be retained as senior clerk in his office by upgrading the post of junior clerk and the Divisional Railway Manager (E), Kota be asked to maintain her lien as senior clerk on his Division. The Division Railway Manager (E), Kota was sent copy of the communication.
(h) The Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota issued an order being office order No. 498 dated 20th April, 1989 that the employee was being posted in his office in place of the office of Loco Foreman, Kota and that the said order shall be effective from 4th April, 1989. Thus, the employee was posted to work as senior clerk in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota.
(i) On 29th September, 1989, the Divisional Office, Kota issued an office order posting inter-alia, the employee in the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota as senior clerk in the pay scale of 1200-2040 (RP).
(j) The office of the Divisional Railway Manager issued a seniority list of senior clerks in the scale of 1200-2040 (RP) on 17th July, 1991/22nd July, 1991 wherein the name of the employee was shown at 64 indicating her joining of duty on the working post of senior clerk on 2nd September, 1989.
(k) The employee was up-set by the said seniority list and made representations. When nothing was heard from the authorities, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal praying therein that the seniority list dated 17th July, 1991/22nd July, 1991 be quashed and set aside and that the Railway Authorities may be directed to issue fresh seniority list by showing her name below Smt. Pushplata Dubey and above Mangi Lal whose names find place at Sr. Nos. 9 and 10 in the seniority list of senior clerks.
(3). The railway authorities filed their reply in opposition to the Original Application. They set up the defence that the employee was posted in the off
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
